An example of why a public option would be nice in the United States

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

When ever someone opines a "right", I like to ask what is the source of this "right"?

I am not saying that it is or is not a right, but I would be interested in knowing what you consider the source of this right?

He's right. The Tenth Amendment says so.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[CaptainHaplo]

A person's health IS a right.

What is not is a right is public payment to care for and uphold that right for everyone else.

You want to be healthy? That's your right. You can exercise, eat healthy, not smoke or drink, etc. Those are your choices.

You want to be unhealthy? Thats your right too. You can eat bon-bons, lay around and get fat, diabetic , smoke up your lungs till you get cancer, drink till your liver dessicates and eat bacon till you clog your arteries. Those are also your choices.

To say that health care is a right, and that health care should NOT be a profit source for business, your saying that the doctors and nurses who take care of you should not be recompensed beyond a certain minimal level. Your saying that you have the RIGHT to make them use their knowledge on you for your benefit without them having benefit as well.

Personal health is a right. Publicly funded health care is trampling the rights of others who have to pay for your bad decisions.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Your saying that you have the RIGHT to make them use their knowledge on you for your benefit without them having benefit as well.

And you're mis-characterizing the argument so as to create a strawman. No one said that health care professionals should work for free or even a pittance. What is being argued is that health insurance should be nationalized and taken away as a profit-making enterprise. The interests of health insurance company shareholders and the insureds are irreparably at odds. Scrap the for-profit model.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Personal health is a right. Publicly funded health care is trampling the rights of others who have to pay for your bad decisions.

If you believe that, you must have a serious moral quandary when you pay your insurance premiums each month. You're paying for the bad decisions of your fellow policyholders.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And you're mis-characterizing the argument so as to create a strawman. No one said that health care professionals should work for free or even a pittance. What is being argued is that health insurance should be nationalized and taken away as a profit-making enterprise. The interests of health insurance company shareholders and the insureds are irreparably at odds. Scrap the for-profit model.

If you believe that, you must have a serious moral quandary when you pay your insurance premiums each month. You're paying for the bad decisions of your fellow policyholders.

Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW. So the local doctor, with just him on staff - cannot afford to hire another physician or nurse - because he has no margin for it. The local small hospital that really SHOULD have an MRI machine because its servicing a fairly large area, can't purchase it because it has no profit to reinvest and grow.

Take profit out of the equation, and your reduced to the old west, one doctor in the whole town and hope he carries what you need in his little black bag when you see him. How exactly is that improving health care?

Secondly - the issue of insurance. I have the CHOICE of paying insurance premiums with everyone else that has my policy or provider. There is no moral quandry - its my CHOICE. The "public option" - as we see steps to put it in place using the existing health care bill - means EVERYONE pays - either through their own insurance premiums, non-coverage "fees" or just outright taxes. No choices given.

You want a public option? Fix it where my tax dollars, my private insurance payments and such don't fund it. Institute it to where only those who use it pay for it. Then fine. But you can't do that - there won't be enough money to pay the bills, so the difference gets lumped on everybody, without any of us having a choice.

So no - there is a big difference in me choosing my insurer and choosing to pay the premium and share the load with others - and having the government MAKE me.

Edit: Yes, its true that right now we are all paying for the care of the uninsured via higher premiums, exorbitant hospital bills and general taxes. However, that doesn't mean the "fix" is to formalize the high costs by recognizing the existing de facto problems and permanticizing them into law. Better to change the equation all the way around.

#1) Change how health care is delivered: disallow hospital emergency room care to non-emergency patients. Yes, allow hospitals to turn away non paying patients who are not in need of immediate emergency care.
#2) Repeal the insurance industry;s anti-trust exemption.
#3) Tort Reform
#4) Rework how Medicare and Medicaid payments are dealt with - paying doctors properly while dramatically reducing fraud.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW. So the local doctor...

Health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc) ≠ health insurance industry (Aetna, Wellpoint, Cigna). Again, you're mis-characterizing the argument and the rest is a strawman.

But you can't do that - there won't be enough money to pay the bills, so the difference gets lumped on everybody, without any of us having a choice.

Exactly. And that's fine.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Exactly. And that's fine.

And this is where you and I have to agree to disagree. You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.

At least there is still some civil discussion possible.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And this is where you and I have to agree to disagree. You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.

At least there is still some civil discussion possible.

*hat tip*

[Freiwillige]

Devil's advocate. Health care is not a right, Its a privilege. Its not set up in our constitution or the bill of rights. Our rights are guaranteed by the government but I don't see health care in any document of rights.

Health care is a privilege. You can earn it just like you could earn a Porsche but a right? How so??? People spout about rights and if it feel's good it must be a right, that is unless its completely wrong.

Not bashing just curious where the concept of Rights that aren't federally listed come from.

[August]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Not bashing just curious where the concept of Rights that aren't federally listed come from.

See my post #11 in this thread.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

See my post #11 in this thread.

I'm not sure, August. Are you suggesting that health "as a right" exists in the US because the Bill of Rights suggests that, since someone says its' so, it is? I'm not trying to be truculent; I'm just not following your train of thought on the Tenth Amendment.

The way I read that, if the Fed doesn't call it a right, nor deny it as a right, then the States (individually) may decide to enforce a right on their own, pursuant to the wishes of their people; further, that the people themselves may decide what is a right.

Now, my need for amplification is this: Is the Amendment suggesting that, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate or deny the right of health, it is therefore an allowed right because an individual calls it so?

I really am not trying to be contrary; I am just trying to understand.

[August]

Originally Posted by Growler

I really am not trying to be contrary; I am just trying to understand.

Don't worry, I understand.

What the 10th Amendment basically says is that Americans have a right to anything unless the Constitution specifically gives their government the power to regulate or deny it.

Some of the framers were worried that some day someone would try to attempt to limit the freedom of the American people to what is listed in the Bill of Rights.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Not bashing just curious where the concept of Rights that aren't federally listed come from.

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

You said it far better than I did Steve.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

Don't worry, I understand.

What the 10th Amendment basically says is that Americans have a right to anything unless the Constitution specifically gives their government the power to regulate or deny it.

Some of the framers were worried that some day someone would try to attempt to limit the freedom of the American people to what is listed in the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

Thank you, gentlemen - that clarifies beautifully.

Curious how many laws we have on the books - and how open to interpretation many of them are over the years.

Health is a condition, not a right. What bothers me about socialized health care (in the US) is the slippery slope it starts the nation down; specifically, around the abortion issue. It's a clear cause of one party to outlaw the practice, and the other party to allow it. Both parties could sue - and win - a case based on the "right" to health, were it such a right. One wins on the basis of woman's health, while the other wins on the basis of fetus health. Every time Congress (more likely, the leanings of the SCOTUS) changed in dominant party, the law would be enforced differently. This is not the way to do business.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Wall o'text.

This. ^